6.5 CM really that much better than the 243?

[Olympus]

This. I had to rant in another thread and won't do it here but to say, run a ballistic calculator on those numbers. The 6.5 doesn't "catch up" (instantaneous velocity) until 800 yds (not 200), at which point the 270 already been there for a bit. As good as the 6.5 is, its not a 270 let alone an '06. No more than an '06 is a 300WM.

You seem to be overlooking the same comments that others are overlooking. The 6.5CM was never designed to be a speed queen. PERIOD. It was not designed to be a hunting round either. PERIOD. So comparing it to a 270 is completely pointless and means absolutely nothing. The 6.5CM was designed as a long range cartridge. If you like to compare it to a 270, START looking 800 yds and beyond and you'll see a big difference. Do you know how many 1000 yard competition shooters use a 270? You're arguing a useless point. The 6.5CM was PRIMARILY designed as a long range cartridge that has found SECONDARY success as a hunting cartridge also. That secondary success does not change the primary design of the cartridge. You're arguing that the 270, whose primary design was as a hunting cartridge, is superior to the 6.5CM, whose SECONDARY purpose is being used as a hunting cartridge. Shocker, that's not even close to being an equal comparison.

 

[troy fairweather]

First of all, don't call me Shirley.
A wide range of factory loads for ANY cartridge is always an advantage for any cartridge.
But this is simply attempting to sidestep the facts that the Creedmoor ballistics are the same as the Swedish and offer no improvement over it.
Reloading for the Swedish using those same bullets would result in the same or better results.
It has been stated that the 6.5 Creedmoor is NOT simply a repackaging of the Swedish to produce a trendy new cartridge, but that is pretty much all that it is.

I was hoping you would use the airplane reference lol.

 

[Old Stumpy]

The 6.5CM was PRIMARILY designed as a long range cartridge that has found SECONDARY success as a hunting cartridge also.

So, this means that the designers of the 6.5 Creedmoor needed to reach back 120 years in history to copy the ballistics of the 6.5 Swedish to achieve this?

 

[marksman13]

First of all, don't call me Shirley.
A wide range of factory loads for ANY cartridge is always an advantage for any cartridge.
But this is simply attempting to sidestep the facts that the Creedmoor ballistics are the same as the Swedish and offer no improvement over it.
Reloading for the Swedish using those same bullets would result in the same or better results.
It has been stated that the 6.5 Creedmoor is NOT simply a repackaging of the Swedish to produce a trendy new cartridge, but that is pretty much all that it is.

I’m not going to argue with you all night. The OP referred to 6.5 CM as it relates to 243 and not 6.5x55. I’ve never argued the ballistic differences between the CM and the x55. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen anyone claim that the CM is ballistically superior to the x55. Actually, what I generally see is arguments for the x55 being ballistically superior to the CM. I don’t know why you decided to start comparing the x55 to the CM.

 

[cdb1]

I’ve read descriptions of the 6.5x55 by current gun writers who have described it as a “very modern looking cartridge”, so maybe it was way ahead of its time.

I’ll also admit it sometimes gets old listening to someone drone on and on about the superiority of the Creedmoor over everything else out there. And quite often it’s coming out of the mouth of someone who I know goes out, shoots a couple of deer every fall then packs it in for the year. For people like that the 6.5 Creedmoor isn’t any better or worse than a number of cartridges.

One thing I do hear from people I believe are knowledgeable is the 6.5 Creedmoor is about the perfect blend of recoil and velocity, added to which there seems to have always been a good selection of aerodynamic bullets, better than .270 anyway. I believe all that.

As I’ve stated before if I were purchasing a rifle today in .264 it would certainly be a 6.5 Creedmoor over a Swede. But since I’m a hunter and not a target shooter, the Creedmoor doesn’t do anything better and IMO lags slightly because I can run my 6.5x55 just a little bit faster and it handles very heavy for caliber bullets better.

 

[mcb]

For me 243 Win is better compared to 6mm Remington (244 Remington) and 6mm Creedmoor. Since they all share common caliber and are designed to fit in a traditional short action (308 win) length action.

6.5 Creedmoor compares better with 260 Remington than the aforementioned cartridges. Again same caliber same standard short action action length.

6.5x55 very well may be the equal or better than 6.5 CM but it does not fit in a short action and that IMHO that puts it in a different class. I can take my 308 bolt gun or 308 gas gun and convert it to any of the above mentioned cartridge other than 6.5x55 with a barrel swap.

The form factor of the cartridge is as much a feature good or bad of a cartridge as its external ballistics. In today's modular market having a cartridge that drops into a standard action length makes building the gun up the way a shooter wants it much easier and more affordably. So yes 6.5x55 may be the equal/better to 6.5CM in external ballistics but 6.5x55's form factor (somewhere traditional short and can long action) limits its platforms. This makes building the gun the way a shooter wants more difficult with less selection and greater cost due to the form factor of the cartridge.

 

[cdb1]

For me 243 Win is better compared to 6mm Remington (244 Remington) and 6mm Creedmoor. Since they all share common caliber and are designed to fit in a traditional short action (308 win) length action.

6.5 Creedmoor compares better with 260 Remington than the aforementioned cartridges. Again same caliber same standard short action action length.

6.5x55 very well may be the equal or better than 6.5 CM but it does not fit in a short action and that IMHO that puts it in a different class. I can take my 308 bolt gun or 308 gas gun and convert it to any of the above mentioned cartridge other than 6.5x55 with a barrel swap.

The form factor of the cartridge is as much a feature good or bad of a cartridge as its external ballistics. In today's modular market having a cartridge that drops into a standard action length makes building the gun up the way a shooter wants it much easier and more affordably. So yes 6.5x55 may be the equal/better to 6.5CM in external ballistics but 6.5x55's form factor (somewhere traditional short and can long action) limits its platforms. This makes building the gun the way a shooter wants more difficult with less selection and greater cost due to the form factor of the cartridge.

It seems the ability to chamber a cartridge in a short action is very important to you. To many it isn’t so in that regard the 6.5 Creedmoor isn’t superior to the 6.5x55, where as to others it is.

In addition the Swede works great in a long action as does the 7x57 which I believe was originally chambered in intermediate actions too. The 6.5x55 DOES have a couple of advantages but only if one hand loads and uses a rifle with a modern action. For all intent and purpose though I believe the Creedmoor has more advantages in today’s world and that’s what I’d buy if purchasing a 6.5 caliber rifle today. Since I already have a Swede and it’s the most accurate bolt action I possess then I don’t see the need to go out and buy a 6.5 Creedmoor.

And I’d definitely rather have a 6.5 Creedmoor than a .260 Remington due to the case design.

 

[JFrank]

D

 

[JFrank]

So, this means that the designers of the 6.5 Creedmoor needed to reach back 120 years in history to copy the ballistics of the 6.5 Swedish to achieve this?

Is there a 6.5 Swedish club that you belong to?
I’ve heard those old antique cartridges where pretty good in their day, weren’t those shootin cast Bullets too?
J

 

[CraigC]

Around 1896. And since the Creedmor shares its' ballistics, it must also be outdated and ancient.



So what? How does this change the fact that its' ballistics remain the same as the ancient 6.5 Swedish?



With the same ballistics as the ancient Swedish? Sort of a contradiction, don't you think?



Claiming that I am running it into the ground is untrue. I am simply stating the facts and letting them tell the tale. If that hurts your feelings, that is your problem.

I'm afraid you have to look beyond bullet weights and velocities. I guess you glossed right over everything else I wrote.

Does the Swede fit into the AR10 action and magazines? No. If you were at all familiar with PRS competition, you might understand the significance of this.

Is the Swede limited in its maximum pressure in deference to old rifles? Yes.

Ballistics are basically the same. In a shorter, smaller, more efficient cartridge and out of shorter barrels. That means less powder, shorter barrels and less variation. So why would you choose the Swede over the Creed, spite?

Why would erroneous rhetoric about a rifle cartridge hurt my feelings? You're not stating facts, you're stating your heavily biased, narrow-minded opinion. It seems to be YOU whose feelings are hurt by the very existence of the 6.5CM. Did the bad mens say you had to trade in your beloved Swede?

 

[Mn Fats]

Hmm who woulda thought a ..... vs Creed would turn into this mess on yet another forum.

 

[Sav .250]

If anybody thinks so...so be it. look at the numbers sold. I`m a 243 guy. Have been since the early 60`s.
It has always delivered . To me the 6.5 is another cal.

 

[Robert]

Enough.